Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2019-20 arose from proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute was the validity of the reopening of the assessment itself.
Held
The Tribunal found that the approval for reopening granted by the prescribed authority was a mere mechanical concurrence with the Assessing Officer's proposal. It held that such a non-independent approval renders the impugned reopening invalid, citing the precedent of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
Key Issues
The validity of the reopening proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to a mechanical and non-independent approval from the prescribed authority under section 151.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.6746/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20
Sh. Devinder Singh, | Income Tax Officer, C-595, | Basement, | PVR | New Delhi Road, | Vikaspuri, New Delhi PAN: AMBPS1099Q (Appellant) | (Respondent)
Assessee by | Sh. Vishnu Arora, CA Department by | Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing | 02.02.2026 Date of pronouncement | 02.02.2026
ORDER
This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the "CIT(A)/NFAC"], Delhi's DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080339103(1), dated 04.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of the validity of the impugned reopening itself, which goes to the root of the matter. This is for the precise reason that the learned counsel representing assessee has invited my attention to the prescribed authority's section 151 approval to the Assessing Officer's reopening proposal, wherein, he has recorded "I concur with the findings of subordinate authority. This is a fit case for…….." than having applied his independent mind thereupon.
Thus, I am of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is invalid since based on a mere mechanical approval of the said prescribed authority in light of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) to quash the same in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee's appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd February, 2026
Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 10th February, 2026.
RK/-
Copy forwarded to:
- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi